The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.rajmohan Gupta
High Court
23 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.rajmohan Gupta
Date of order
23 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.rajmohan Gupta, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: By the said order dated 16th February, 2008 the Appellant was also directed to remove office objections within a period of six weeks, failing which the Appeal was to stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1468 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1468 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1468 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.952 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.952 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.952 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
Shri.Rajmohan Gupta .. Respondent
Mr.A.D.Kango for the Appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasai for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE : 23rd April, 2008
DATE : 23rd April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this
Notice of Motion the Appellant is seeking condonation of
11 days delay caused in taking out the present Notice of Motion and the Appellant is also seeking extension of
time for removal of office objections in the Appeal.
2. Perused our earlier order dated 16th February, 2008
passed in the Notice of Motion No.2017/2007, wherein this
Court had condoned the delay caused in filing the Appeal
subject to payment of costs of Rs.7500/- by the Appellant
to the Respondent within a period of six weeks from the
date of that order. By the said order dated 16th
February, 2008 the Appellant was also directed to remove
office objections within a period of six weeks, failing
which the Appeal was to stand dismissed for non
prosecution without further reference to the Court.
3. It appears that as per the aforesaid order dated 16th
February, 2008 passed in the Notice of Motion
No.2017/2007 the Appellant has not paid the costs of
Rs.7500/- and has not even removed the office objections
within the time stipulated. The Appellant has taken out
the present Notice of Motion No.1468/2008 on 15th April,
2008, and the same has not yet been served on the
Respondent. Under these circumstances, we are not
inclined to entertain this Notice of Motion. Hence, the
Notice of Motion No.1468/2008 stands dismissed.
4. Needless to state that as per the order dated 16th
February, 2008 passed in the earlier Notice of Motion
No.2017/2007, the Appeal has already been dismissed for
non-prosecution because of non-removal of office
objections.
(SANTOSH BORA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.